We have located links that may give you full text access.
Optimal introduction of laparoscopic liver resection for Child-Pugh B.
Asian Journal of Endoscopic Surgery 2018 August 22
INTRODUCTION: Surgery for Child-Pugh B liver function is considered risky because of its high morbidity rate and the acceptable indication criteria for laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for Child-Pugh B patients have not been identified. We conducted a retrospective cohort study to determine the optimal introduction of LLR for Child-Pugh B patients based on our single-institute experience.
METHODS: A total of 17 Child-Pugh B patients underwent LLR between 2005 and 2017. Their clinical outcomes were compared to those of LLR for Child-Pugh A patients (103 cases), conventional open liver resection for Child-Pugh B patients (19 cases), and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for Child-Pugh B patients (20 cases) during the same period.
RESULTS: LLR for Child-Pugh B patients had a significantly higher conversion rate than LLR for Child-Pugh A patients (Child-Pugh A vs B: 3.9% vs 35.3%, P < 0.01). However, patients who successfully underwent laparoscopic resection (11 cases) had fewer postoperative ascites and shorter postoperative hospital stays compared to patients who underwent conventional open liver resection. In comparison to the RFA group, the LLR group more frequently had lesions in the left lateral segment (LLR vs RFA: 50.0% vs 10.0%, P = 0.02) and exophytic tumor (21.4% vs 0%, P = 0.02) than did the RFA group. Also, compared to the RFA group, the LLR group had a lower local recurrence rate (0% vs 15%, P = 0.25) and a longer recurrence-free survival (P = 0.049), but the overall survival was similar between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: In the treatment of Child-Pugh B liver malignancy, the minimal invasiveness of LLR was revealed. Our results suggest that lesions in the left lateral segment and exophytic tumors are good indications for LLR for Child-Pugh B.
METHODS: A total of 17 Child-Pugh B patients underwent LLR between 2005 and 2017. Their clinical outcomes were compared to those of LLR for Child-Pugh A patients (103 cases), conventional open liver resection for Child-Pugh B patients (19 cases), and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for Child-Pugh B patients (20 cases) during the same period.
RESULTS: LLR for Child-Pugh B patients had a significantly higher conversion rate than LLR for Child-Pugh A patients (Child-Pugh A vs B: 3.9% vs 35.3%, P < 0.01). However, patients who successfully underwent laparoscopic resection (11 cases) had fewer postoperative ascites and shorter postoperative hospital stays compared to patients who underwent conventional open liver resection. In comparison to the RFA group, the LLR group more frequently had lesions in the left lateral segment (LLR vs RFA: 50.0% vs 10.0%, P = 0.02) and exophytic tumor (21.4% vs 0%, P = 0.02) than did the RFA group. Also, compared to the RFA group, the LLR group had a lower local recurrence rate (0% vs 15%, P = 0.25) and a longer recurrence-free survival (P = 0.049), but the overall survival was similar between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: In the treatment of Child-Pugh B liver malignancy, the minimal invasiveness of LLR was revealed. Our results suggest that lesions in the left lateral segment and exophytic tumors are good indications for LLR for Child-Pugh B.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
Perioperative echocardiographic strain analysis: what anesthesiologists should know.Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 2024 April 11
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app